Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2024 Jul 26:2024:5524768.
doi: 10.1155/2024/5524768. eCollection 2024.

Efficacy of Brucella Vaccines in Sheep: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Lian-Min Li  1   2 , Wen-Tao Xiang  2 , Ting Li  2 , Mei-Mei Xiang  2 , Fei Liu  2 , Jian-Ming Li  1
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Efficacy of Brucella Vaccines in Sheep: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Lian-Min Li et al. Transbound Emerg Dis. .

Abstract

Background: Brucellosis is a major worldwide public health problem with economic and zoonotic implications. Despite the importance of vaccines in preventing brucellosis, no previous systematic evaluation of vaccination in sheep has been conducted.

Materials and methods: Articles were searched in databases such as PubMed, Science Direct, Cochrane, VIP, Wan Fang, and CNKI by screening the articles, and articles reporting Brucella vaccination in sheep were included in the study. Meta-analysis was performed using random effects models to calculate pooled risk ratios for vaccines and to calculate vaccine effectiveness.

Results: A total of 2,605 articles were retrieved, and 17 articles were obtained through screening for analysis. The effectiveness of vaccination was 65% (RR = 0.35, 95% CI: 0.27-0.36; VE = 65%), with the M5 vaccine being significantly more effective at 84% (RR = 0.1587, 95% CI: 0.0256-0.9858; VE = 84%) than the other vaccines, and intramuscular injection could be the best route of immunization. Rev.1 was indicated for female sheep, especially for pregnant ewes (RR = 0.2016, 95% CI: 0.1139-0.3569; VE = 80%), and for reduced abortions (RR = 0.0978, 95% CI: 0.0459-0.2085).

Conclusion: This meta-analysis was conducted to identify the relevant factors affecting vaccine efficacy. We recommend that sheep be inoculated intramuscularly with Rev.1, different inoculation protocols be adopted for sheep of different ages, and pregnant ewes be inoculated with Rev.1 to prevent abortion.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flow diagram of the search and selection of eligible studies.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Funnel chart to detect publication bias.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Egger detected publication bias in the study.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Trim-and-fill chart to detect research bias.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Forest plot showing heterogeneity between studies.
Figure 6
Figure 6
Forest plot of the pooled protective effect of vaccination against brucellosis infection after exposure to virulent Brucella.
Figure 7
Figure 7
Forest plot of the protective effect of vaccination with different species against brucellosis infection after exposure to virulent Brucella.
Figure 8
Figure 8
Forest plot of the protective effect of different doses of M-111 against brucellosis infection after exposure to virulent Brucella.
Figure 9
Figure 9
Forest plot of the protective effect of different doses of Rev.1 against brucellosis infection after exposure to virulent Brucella.
Figure 10
Figure 10
Forest plot of the protective effect of different doses of S2 inoculation against brucellosis infection after exposure to virulent Brucella.
Figure 11
Figure 11
Forest plot of the protective effect of different doses of B. ovis against brucellosis infection after exposure to virulent Brucella.
Figure 12
Figure 12
Forest plot of the protective effect of different inoculation modes of M-111 against brucellosis infection after exposure to virulent Brucella.
Figure 13
Figure 13
Forest plot of the protective effect of different inoculation modes of Rev.1 against brucellosis infection after exposure to virulent Brucella.
Figure 14
Figure 14
Forest plot of the protective effect of different inoculation modes of S2 against brucellosis infection after exposure to virulent Brucella.
Figure 15
Figure 15
Forest plot of the protective effect of vaccination at different sexes against brucellosis infection after exposure to virulent Brucella.
Figure 16
Figure 16
Forest plot of the protective effect of different vaccines against brucellosis infection in females after exposure to virulent Brucella.
Figure 17
Figure 17
Forest plot of the protective effect of different vaccines against brucellosis infection in males after exposure to virulent Brucella.
Figure 18
Figure 18
Forest plot of the protective effect of different vaccines against brucellosis infection in pregnant sheep after exposure to virulent Brucella.
Figure 19
Figure 19
Forest plot of the protective effect of vaccination of sheep of different ages against brucellosis infection after exposure to virulent Brucella.
Figure 20
Figure 20
Forest plot of the protective effect of different vaccines against brucellosis infection in adult sheep after exposure to virulent Brucella.
Figure 21
Figure 21
Forest plot of the protective effect of different vaccines against brucellosis infection in lambs after exposure to virulent Brucella.
Figure 22
Figure 22
Forest plot of the protective effect of different vaccinations against clinical signs of brucellosis (miscarriage) following exposure to virulent Brucella.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

References

    1. Wang S., Wang W., Sun K., Bateer H., Zhao X. Comparative genomic analysis between newly sequenced Brucella abortus vaccine strain A19 and another Brucella abortus vaccine S19. Genomics . 2020;112(2):1444–1453. doi: 10.1016/j.ygeno.2019.08.015. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Wang S., Zhao X., Sun K., Bateer H., Wang W. The genome sequence of Brucella abortus vaccine strain A19 provides insights on its virulence attenuation compared to Brucella abortus strain 9-941. Gene . 2022;830 doi: 10.1016/j.gene.2022.146521.146521 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Goodwin Z. I., Pascual D. W. Brucellosis vaccines for livestock. Veterinary Immunology and Immunopathology . 2016;181:51–58. doi: 10.1016/j.vetimm.2016.03.011. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Glowacka P., Żakowska D., Naylor K., Nimcewicz M., Bielawska-Drozd A. Brucella—virulence factors, pathogenesis and treatment. Polish Journal of Microbiology . 2018;67(2) doi: 10.21307/pjm-2018-029.161 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Lalsiamthara J., Lee J. H. Development and trial of vaccines against Brucella. Journal of Veterinary Science . 2017;18(S1) doi: 10.4142/jvs.2017.18.S1.281.290 - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Substances

LinkOut - more resources